Best Evidence of 9/11 Complicity

a short guide to some of the best evidence

"Data always beats theories. 'Look at data three times and then come to a conclusion,' versus 'coming to a conclusion and searching for some data.' The former will win every time."
-- Matthew Simmons, ASPO-USA conference, Boston, MA, October 26, 2006

Best explanation of why it was allowed (and assisted) -
to provide pretext for grabbing the Middle East oil fields as we reach
Peak Oil, and to enable a global surveillance society

Best documented evidence -
suppressed warnings (from FBI investigation of flight schools and from
US allies warning 9/11 was imminent), failure to follow standard operating
procedure during the attacks, Air Force and intelligence wargames on
9/11

Best theory of how 9/11 happened -
the hijackers were themselves hijacked via remote control

Best historical precedent - the Reichstag Fire (February
27, 1933)

Best evidence of remote control to steer the four planes - Flight
77 was steered into the nearly empty part of the Pentagon

Best "physical evidence" - Flight 77

Best areas for further investigation (an unlikely scenario) - Black
Boxes from all four planes would confirm or reject remote control theory,
Able Danger intelligence program

Best analyses of "left gatekeepers" who pretend 9/11 was
a surprise attack

Best smears in the media against 9/11 truth (focus on "no plane" and similar untrue claims while ignoring
wargames and other credible claims)

Best smear against this website (anonymous slur that
it's funded by Carlyle Group - in response for pointing out that not
all claims of complicity are true)

Best hoax (most effective): Rumsfeld's
"Pentagon missile" hoax is the most important disinformation
masquerading as 9/11 truth

Best examples of creative writing generating
hoaxes (Hollywood helping the government?): "nukes
blew up the towers," "the passengers all landed in Cleveland
and were killed by government agents," "the plane that hit
the South Tower was firing missiles at the building before impact"

The Archeology
of 9/11: unearthing the evidence

Sifting through the volumes of 9/11 evidence is analogous
to archeology. Only some of the evidence for the distant ancestors of
all living beings has been unearthed and catalogued. However, the fact
that the currently known fossil record is incomplete does not prevent
science from attempting to determine patterns and draw tentative conclusions
about the history of life on Earth, knowing that additional evidence is
likely to alter the story as we gain further knowledge. The early days
of archeology saw spectacular forgeries "revealed" by unscrupulous
advocates of particular theories, which parallels current efforts to distract
and discredit 9/11 skeptics with disinformation. It is unlikely that any
story of 9/11 is completely true, and hopefully enough of the documentation
will be made public in the years to come - and enough whistleblowers step
forward - so that historians will be able to more fully explain what happened
to the United States of America.

Whatever details future archeologists of truth will unearth
are unlikely to discredit the Reichstag Fire paradigm for understanding
9/11 - they merely will add to our understanding of the details of how
the "Reichstag" was burned. The real issue is to explain why the attacks were perpetrated.

I don't like to build my case on ruminations and speculations,
but on the available best evidence, from which I draw the most likely
conclusion, applying the rather unglamorous but time-honored technique
called the "scientific method." Formulate a hypothesis based
on the evidence, then test that hypothesis (in this case using questions).

To get caught up into the "he said she said" (what Dan Rather
said Myers said Bush said etc.) is to get involved in chasing your tail
— and everyone else's! History tells us that in a crisis like
this, the scramble to cover butts, even when there HASN'T been a conspiracy
involved, ususally results in contradictory, every-changing stories.
This is true from sorting out who broke the cookie jar in the kitchen
to who was caught with their hand in the till at Enron...everyone will
scramble to hit on a story that plays well. So, to avoid this quagmire,
the best approach is to go with the most concrete evidence and know
facts.. Known fact: NORAD called by the FAA because it is the established
protocol in such a case (and, as one of my readers suggested, NORAD
would probably have known of the planes even before then, based on their
radar data). In keeping with protocol, NORAD would have required a response
from Bush. Now just applying common sense (another unglamorous habit
of mine), here's what you get:

1. If this was indeed a conspiracy involving those in high places, then
the details of NORAD's response, which would become a matter of public
record, now or in the future, would have been accounted for in advance
by the conspirators.

2. When the stakes are as high as the ones involved on 9/11, a conspirator
would take NO CHANCES on doing anything that might seem to implicate
themselves. By NOT CALLING ANY PLANES, Bush et al would be implicating
themselves big time. However, by delaying the call for a scramble and
not calling for evacuations, they would easily be able to plead later
their decisions were based on not having any idea the danger was of
the scope it proved to be. This is, in fact, what the Bush folks have
tried to do. If NO PLANES had been called in at all, there are too many
"peripheral" people in the chain of communications, from the
FAA to NORAD to Bush that would have been outraged and spoken out. A
delayed call on the other hand would have been initially seen as "tragic
bad luck" and later as too ambiguous to base an accusation on.
....

I feel that people cannot have an entire barrel of facts
and red herrings dumped in their laps and expect to sort it all out...the
tendency is to throw up their hands in despair, confusion and frustration.
Which is just what Bush and Co. would like everyone to do. What I tried
to do was to sort through and identify the most tangible facts, then
present these, along with all the factual connections between people,
places and things, then allow people to ponder it for themselves. I
did not set out to "sell" a "conspiracy theory,"
but if the facts presented happen scream conspiracy, that message will
be heard loud and clear. One thing I have learned is that people 1.
are generally quicker on the uptake than the media gives them credit
for, and 2. generally recognize the truth when they see it plainly presented.
That is why the corporate powers that be and their pals in the mainstream
media work very hard to avoid presenting important facts plainly and
work even harder to disguise the truth.

We must get past leaders and arguments over the plausibility of their various "how" hypotheses, and back to the original, political fight for disclosure around the key questions of what happened and why, official accountability, and just treatment of the the perpetrators and victims of crime.

Obstruction after (evidence withholding and destruction, FAA tapes, black boxes, much more), commission cover-ups and omissions. Fraudulence of reports -- as now allowed by the former Commissioners themselves. Use of "confessions" under torture from possible imposters to construct the entire main plot of the 9/11 Com Report.

History of US and other allied-agency links to "al-Qaeda." Use of "al Qaeda" in effecting policy. All that Ali Mohamed / Emad Saleem / Saeed Sheikh stuff.

The above all implicate known names including many officials in differing capacities from negligence through obstruction and facilitation to perpetration. Put some who were not the direct planners under sufficient pressure, the facade cracks and the rest of the story will be exposed.

The bodies of evidence for the above are likeliest to meet probable cause standard for legal action against specific persons, in turn opening up the rest. (Demolitions argument does not do that!)

The following two lead to context and creating plausibility:

History of precedents and other criminality by government.

Rumsfeld, Cheney, old Bush mob coming back to power, PNAC and perception of imperial decline, CoG planning, intent and preparation to invade Afghanistan and Iraq prior to 9/11.

These will be the focuses when you guys wake up in the real America of today (where "9/11 conspiracy" has become a part of the subcultural mosaic, just another spectacle) and decide being right doesn't matter: Winning justice does. Play to win.

Now that Michael Ruppert's book "Crossing the Rubicon" and Paul Thompson's
book "The Terror Timeline" are in print, along with some other excellent
reports, it is unlikely there will be any new authentic claims of complicity. Virtually all of the claims of "new 9/11 evidence" since the
2004 "election" have either been fake, or real claims that were exposed
long ago sandwiched in between nonsense. Simple summaries that are
easy to digest and that avoid the BS claims are needed more -- and woven into
understanding the broader perspective of the Peak Oil wars. The "research"
time for 9/11 truth is over - and the only way forward for the 9/11 truth movement
likely to accomplish more than we already have is to separate the real material
from the bogus stuff. There has been some authentic new information collected
about additional war games on 9/11 (in addition to those identified in "Rubicon")
but they do not alter the basic political understanding of "means, motive
and opportunity" identified by Ruppert. (There has also been a variety
of fake claims about war games posted on the web, easily found through google.com
and other search engines, which makes it harder for people to differentiate
real evidence from distracting chaff.)

There were two "new" pieces of evidence in summer 2005 - Paul
Thompson's new, expanded list of 9/11 war game exercises, and the information
about the "Able Danger" military
program that was tracking Mohammed Atta before 9/11. The Cooperative
Research website is the best compilation of this excellent evidence. Neither
of these revelations change the paradigm for understanding 9/11, since the precise
number of 9/11 war games does not alter this paradigm, and mainstream sources
have already disclosed that several of the hijackers supposedly received training
on US military bases.

There is only one difference between the evidence showing the
Bush administration's criminal culpability in and foreknowledge of the
attacks of 9/11, and the evidence showing that the administration deceived
the American public about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Both sets of evidence are thoroughly documented. They are irrefutable
and based upon government records and official statements and actions
shown to be false, misleading or dishonest. And both sets of evidence
are unimpeachable. The difference is that the evidence showing
the Iraqi deception is being seriously and widely investigated by
the mainstream press, and actively by an ever-increasing number of elected
representatives. That's it.

At West Point the cadets are told that amateurs
discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics. The same is true in
litigation, especially civil litigation. Amateurs natter on about "burden
of proof," professionals focus on the "theory of the case."
In the terms of modern civil litigation "burden of proof" has
been reduced to a technical question which has little practical importance
to the outcome of the trial. The main practical importance of issues relating
to the burden of proof is in criminal litigation where the defense is
often that the state has failed to meet its burden of proving its case
beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil litigation, this is not a winning
strategy. Civil litigation is won or lost on who can persuade the trier
of fact - a jury or a judge - that his case is the stronger. Indeed having
the burden of proof is often an advantage as it gives a plaintiff the
first shot at the minds of the jury. This can be a distinct advantage
in practice. The experts agree that the best way
to meet the "burden of persuasion" necessary to win a case is
to formulate a theory of the case and to plan trial strategy around it. [emphasis added]

Best
9/11 evidence

Best explanation of why 9/11
was allowed (and assisted)

9/11 was allowed to happen (and given technical assistance to make sure
it happened) as part of a covert plan to prepare the US empire for Peak
Oil. 9/11 provided the excuse for the war to seize the Iraqi
oil fields (part of a larger scheme to dominate the remaining oil
supplies). 9/11 also enabled passage of the USA
Patriot Act and other repressive policies that are part of the long-planned Homeland Security surveillance society. 9/11
was the pretext for the "War on Terror," which its supporters
claim is a "war that will not end in our lifetime." The neo-conservatives
call this conflict World War IV.

Wargames simulating the
actual events at the same time as actual events that seem to have confused
the air defenses.

WHERE Flight 77 hit - the nearly
empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector
WHAT hit the Pentagon - Flight 77, probably
electronically hijacked
HOW the air defenses did not protect
the Pentagon, even after the towers had been hit
WHO scheduled multiple war game exercises on 9/11, including a "plane into building" scenario
WHY 9/11 was allowed to happen (and given
technical assistance): Peak Oil and Homeland Security

Put Options that bet on the stock values
of American and United airlines in the days before the attacks (betting
the prices would drop).

Efforts by FBI management to interfere
with FBI investigations into the flight schools.

In this view, the hijackers were allowed to finish their preparations,
board the planes, hijack the controls but then remote control technology
was used to ensure that the planes not only completed their missions
but also did not strike targets that would have caused even more damage.
Flight 11, the first hijacked plane, flew over Indian Point nuclear
power station, just north of New York City (an attack there would have
been much, much worse than 9/11). And if Flight 77 had hit any other
part of the Pentagon, thousands of people could have been killed. This
hybrid scenario is speculative, but remote control flight technology
is commercially available. One of the manufacturers of this
equipment is System Planning corporation, whose former director, Dov Zakheim, was a signer of the "PNAC"
report stating a New Pearl Harbor would enable their global domination
goals. Mr Zakheim was Comptroller of the Pentagon from 2001 through
early 2004 (in charge of the money).ng
the Hijackers

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/10/skinny-on-osama.html
I've long thought that if we assume a decision had been taken
to let it happen, then we should expect that measures were be taken
to ensure it happened precisely as desired, and spectacularly so. With
so much at stake, nothing would be left to the skill and luck of the
19 hijackers. Flight 77's 270 degree turn to hit the ground
floor of the virtually unoccupied side of
the Pentagon, while supposedly piloted by
the grossly incompetent Hani Hanjour, is the most striking example.
The recent report that the WTC black boxes were recovered after all, is suggestive of the same: that the data conflicted
somehow with the received fiction. Perhaps the hijackers were
themselves hijacked.

from Nicholas Levis, summeroftruth.org:"Staging 9/11 as an inside job is going to work
best (in fact, is likely to work only) if there actually exists an active
network of anti-American terrorists who are deeply committed to killing
Americans in response to U.S. policy. In other words, those
who would blame Qaeda need a (relatively) real Qaeda. A partly-real
enemy is much better than an entirely fabricated one.
"The most robust way for insider masterminds to stage 9/11
and get away with it is to arrange for their agents to infiltrate among
"real foreign terrorists." Let them come up with
their own plots (or plant plots among them), choose a plot that will
produce the results desired by the masterminds, and see that through
to fruition. At some point, the masterminds and their agents
will hijack the plot from the would-be hijackers, to make sure it happens.
You won't risk the whole game on the ability of amateurs to get away
with it, you will help them along or even replace them (with a remote
control hijacking, for example). But it's best to have "real terrorists"
in play. They leave a more solid trail of evidence internationally. Cops and agents and academics of two dozen countries can honestly confirm
the existence of an al-Qaeda network. That way there is less need to
initiate outside observers into the plot and you don't have to hope
they are all stupid, as they would have to be to fall for a complete
fabrication of "Qaeda." (Qaeda at this point is just a term
of convenience for the Islamist extremist networks.)
"The best result would be for a whole bunch of Islamist
extremists running around believing that their crew pulled off 9/11
all by themselves (how inspiring for them!). The patsies should believe
they actually did it. This was the case with the Reichstag
Fire and Marinus van der Lubbe: the patsy believed he had
done it."

Best evidence for remote control planes

Some coincidence theorists claim that it was a one-in-five chance that
the nearly empty part of the Pentagon was hit, even though the flight
maneuvers were world class precision flying and it is impossible to
believe that a terrorist intent on causing as much damage as possible
would have flown around the Pentagon to ensure that the one area with
the fewest victims would be hit.

It is likely, but unprovable, that some form of remote
control technology was used to steer Flight 77 into the nearly empty,
recently reconstructed part of the Pentagon. Even an expert pilot substituted
for flight school dropout and alleged terrorist Hani Hanjour would not
have made the amazing flight pattern to minimize casualties on the ground
by hitting the nearly empty part of the Pentagon.

The data on the black boxes (supposedly found from all four
planes) would refute or confirm the remote control hypothesis, but this
information has not been made public. Few 9/11 "truth" activists
have focused their attention on this secret data, preferring instead
to desire the videos of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon (which would not tell us anything we don't already
know).

Best historical precedent

The 1933 Reichstag Fire,
which was allowed to happen (the lone arsonist had been overheard
boasting that he wanted to burn the building) and given technical
assistance (SS goons were in the basement with barrels of fuel
while the patsy was upstairs trying to set fires) to make sure
it happened.

The 1941 Pearl Harbor attack was allowed to happen to galvanize public
opinion to support war, but President Roosevelt did not need to provide
technical assistance to the Japanese (they could find Hawaii without
any assistance). Pearl Harbor did not involve a "stand down"
-- merely a refusal to share critical intelligence with Army and Navy
commanders in Hawaii who would have taken defensive measures if they
knew the attacks were imminent.

Flight 77 was steered into the mostly empty,
recently reconstructed and strengthened sector of the Pentagon. This
fact is accepted by the mainstream media - but it is rarely focused
upon. It is strong evidence (but not proof) that some form of remote
control was used to ensure that the planes caused enough havoc and
destruction for the "shock and awe" but not uncontrollable
damage (if Flight 77 had hit any other part of the Pentagon, the recovery
would have been far more difficult).

Best areas for further investigation (an unlikely
scenario)

Able Danger - military intelligence program that was
tracking the hijackers before 9/11. The Center
for Cooperative Research has the best public database about this
scandal.

The data on the "black boxes"
(which were supposedly recovered from all four planes) would refute
or confirm the remote control theory.

Best politician who dared to ask inconvenient
questions

Many politicians privately know the truths about 9/11, but
only one in Congress who dared to raise these concerns was Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-Georgia).

In July 2006, McKinney won slightly less than a majority in the Democratic
Party primary, and in August was defeated by her Democratic opponent
in the runoff primary. These elections were conducted with touchscreen
voting machines that can easily be hacked. The election outcome was
also influenced by a nasty media barrage smearing McKinney while ignoring
the substance of the evidence on the issues she exposed. Both political parties joined forces to ensure she was removed from Congress. One of her final acts was to introduce an impeachment resolution against Bush and Cheney, no other members of the House of Representative chose to support it, although Dennis Kucinich introduced his own impeachment resolution (which no other member supported).

Crossing the Rubicon: the Decline of the American Empire
at the End of the Age of Oil, by Michael Ruppert

The Terror Timeline: Year by Year, Day by Day, Minute by
Minute, by Paul Thompson

The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy
of Terrorism, by Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed

The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America, by Peter Dale Scott

Disconnecting the Dots: How CIA and FBI officials helped enable 9/11 and evaded government investigations, by Kevin Fenton

Best movies about 9/11

911: Press for Truth
2006 documentary about Paul Thompson (author of the Complete 9/11 Timeline)
and the "Jersey Girls" (widows who demanded a real investigation,
which they did not get). An excellent introduction to how 9/11 was allowed
to happen for those not familiar with the evidence.

The Truth and Lies of 9/11Michael Ruppert's first speech after 9/11, still accurate
after all these years.

Denial Stops Here: From 9/11 to Peak Oil and BeyondUpdated presentation from Michael Ruppert (2005), good
summary of 9/11 wargames and the context of Peak Oil (a bit choppy in
the production, but excellent information that is mandatory viewing
for everyone interested in 9/11 truth).

9/11 Citizens Commission (New York City,
September 9, 2004)
best single video presentation on 9/11 complicity, from a forum with
Cynthia McKinney, John Judge, Michael Ruppert, Indira Singh, Barrie
Zwicker, Nicholas Levis, Jenna Orkin and others. Probably the least
promoted 9/11 truth video, perhaps because it avoids the "no plane"
hoaxes and it is extremely compelling and credible. A similar, much
more flawed event called "Confronting the Evidence" was held
in New York City on September 11, 2004 which did focus on the hoaxes
(a mix of good information and nonsense) and has received much more
publicity.

The Great DeceptionFirst video to raise issues of 9/11 complicity - published
by Barrie Zwicker in January and February 2002.

The Great Conspiracy: the 9/11 News Special You Never SawBarrie Zwicker's 2004 sequel to The Great Deception. It
is a full length documentary that updates the earlier work. A very good
production (for the most part), but the finale includes Thierry Meyssan's
"no plane hit Pentagon" hoax.

The Power of Nightmares
a BBC documentary on the rise of the American neo-conservatives and
the rise of the radical Islamists, accepts the official story of 9/11
(supposedly a surprise attack) but otherwise is the best history of
the circumstances that led to 9/11.

www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.html
Cover-up or Complicity of the Bush Administration?
The Role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI) in the September
11 Attacks
by Michel Chossudovsky
Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa
Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), Montréal
Posted at globalresearch.ca 2 November 2001
note: "Global Research" promotes the idea that Peak Oil is not real and highlights some of the false claims about 9/11, but this article is excellent

Crossing
the Rubicon, chapter 8, Setting up the War: Pakistan’s ISI,
America’s Agent for Protecting the Taliban and al Qaeda

Coleen Rowley - coleenrowley.com - her Congressional campaign website (running as a Democrat in Minnesota),
would be interesting to see the hearings that would happen if she is
elected and the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives
in November 2006.

Published on Tuesday, September 5, 2006 by CommonDreams.org
The 9/11 Commission: A Play on Nothing in Three Acts
by Sibel Edmonds & Bill Weaver
(a good article profiling some of the whistleblowers)www.commondreams.org/views06/0905-25.htm

Lieutenant Colonel Steve Butler, vice chancellor for
student affairs at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California
-- a US military facility that one or more of the hijackers reportedly
attended during the 1990s.

"Of course President Bush
knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn
the American people because he needed this war on terrorism. His daddy
had Saddam and he needed Osama. His presidency
was going nowhere. He wasn't elected by the American people, but placed
in the Oval Office by a conservative supreme court. The economy was
sliding into the usual Republican pits and he needed something on
which to hang his presidency.... This guy is a joke. What is sleazy
and contemptible is the President of the United States not telling
the American people what he knows for political gain."

Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire
at the End of the Age of Oil, by Michael Ruppert www.fromthewilderness.com (especially the chapter on the FBI whistleblower)

The Big Wedding: 9/11, the Whistleblowers, and the Cover-up,
by Sander Hicks (profiling Randy Glass and Delmart Vreeland)

Welcome to Terrorland: Mohammed Atta and the 9-11 Cover-up
in Florida, by Daniel Hopsicker www.madcowprod.com (only investigation of the Florida flight schools used
by some of the 9/11 plotters)

Best 9/11 truth propaganda

Deception Dollars - a satirical
spoof of the American dollar bill that promotes websites that discuss
9/11 complicity. Over six million deception dollars were distributed
at peace rallies and other events from late 2002 through 2005, and were
extremely popular with crowds (many who passed them out in public found
it hard to pass them out fast enough). The existence of the Deception
Dollar campaign was censored from the media - both mainstream and "alternative"
- despite the very public aspect of this effort. Unfortunately, every
edition of the Deception Dollar included a couple websites that base
their claims on hoaxes (some seem deliberate, others are merely incompetent),
so the Deception Dollar list is not an automatic list of a guide to
the best evidence. This website (oilempire.us) was removed from the Deception Dollar list after pointing out that some of the claims for 9/11 truth are false. In the summer of 2007 the Dollars include links to the Loose Change no-plane movie and the so-called Scholars for 9/11 Truth -- so the "peak" of effectiveness of this campaign is past.

Best analyses of "left gatekeepers"
who pretend 9/11 was a surprise attack

Two of the best (most subtle) smears about 9/11 "truth"
were an April 29, 2006 USA Today front page review
of Loose Change and Mark Morford's promotion of Loose Change in the
San Francisco Chronicle on March 29, 2006.
Several USA Today reporters saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon while they
were driving to work (their offices are not far from the Pentagon).
Therefore, the fact this publication chose to highlight a film claiming
Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon is not a compliment - presumably
USA Today (like other media publications) understands that this is one
of the fake claims about complicity. While one of the 9/11 war games
is known due (in part) to a USA Today story in 2004, this newspaper
does not dare list all of the 9/11 war games that are publicly known
nor the implication of the simultaneous exercises that day, especially
those that resembled real world events. Morford's articles on 9/11 complicity
issues are more subtle still - they seem to support the grassroots efforts
to investigate yet steer the reader toward the "no plane"
claims, away from the real evidence.

Best smear against this website

The most amusing - and bizarre - smear against oilempire.us
was an anonymous posting on the Portland Indymedia bulletin board claiming
that the Carlyle Group supposedly funds this website. It is a classic COINTELPRO tactic called "snitch
jacketing" - an accusation that a genuine activist is a stooge
of the government.

Best hoax: Rumsfeld's
"Pentagon missile" hoax was the most important disinformation
masquerading as 9/11 truth